"We are sweeping away the out-of-date and overly generous benefits, and introducing a one-off uplift in pay. Crucially, thereafter MPs' pay will be linked to everyone elses.""We have designed these reforms so they do not cost the taxpayer a penny more. When taken with the tens of millions we have saved by reforming the business cost and expenses regime, we have saved the taxpayer over £35m with the changes we have introduced since 2010."

In other words they are swapping out non cash benefits for cash payments and (according to them) the end amount is the same.

"By law, Congress obtains an annual automatic pay adjustment, equivalent to the prior year's average private sector wage change. However, the raise can't be a higher percentage than for other federal employees."

Congress has voted to decline these increases the last several years (and in a couple of those years federal employees did not receive any living adjustment). I do not believe Congress has received a cost of living raise since 2009.

Politicians don't set their own wages. this increase has been announced by a completely independent agencyEvery politician who wants to keep their seat has publicly condemned the riseThe agency has said that they will get the raise no matter what, and it won't cost the taxpayer a pennyAfter this massive spike, their pay will only rise in parallel with everyone else aftrewards

Since when do politicians do as they say? It's like expecting a King's servants to live as well as he does just because they are near him. You're all drones serving the very few, either accept it or don't but don't think it is otherwise.

This is my view on it. You know how to solve all of our political problems? Remove all financial gain from being a politician. No gifts. No salaries. Then you would only see people who actually CARE about the job doing the job. And they would actually do it.

But since that's never going to happen, there really is nothing to discuss.

truelateral:I very much enjoyed my 1% pay rise in April, thanks government. Of course my pension contributions went up by 1% of pay as well.

My pension won't be any bigger, either. But that doesn't matter because I'll be working until I am 70.

Something tells me you work in government. Not that that's bad per se, but also you should be thankful for what you do get.

Out here in the private sector they solved the problem of 1% raise offset by 1% pension contribution by discontinuing our pensions, so the 1% we get, we get. Oh wait, they raise our medical contributions by 5%... But they tell us we get to keep it, and if we don't tow that line, well, leave. Unless they decide to make you leave against your will without warning or reason. But at least that means we don't have to worry about working until we turn 70. We will be sent out to pasture, without pension, long before that.

TheGreatGazoo:"We are sweeping away the out-of-date and overly generous benefits, and introducing a one-off uplift in pay. Crucially, thereafter MPs' pay will be linked to everyone elses.""We have designed these reforms so they do not cost the taxpayer a penny more. When taken with the tens of millions we have saved by reforming the business cost and expenses regime, we have saved the taxpayer over £35m with the changes we have introduced since 2010."

In other words they are swapping out non cash benefits for cash payments and (according to them) the end amount is the same.

That's what I seem to get from TFA. If I remember right, members of Parliament get fairly generous use of expense accounts for things they deem "related to Government Business". If they are cutting that privilege and bumping up salary to compensate, it's not so bad an idea. It's sort of like getting a raise but losing the Company Car.

It also has the advantage of making the books more transparent. If they just get one check (er, cheque I guess) instead of sending in bills for random stuff people can really actually see what they are getting paid.

Moopy Mac:Congress has voted to decline these increases the last several years (and in a couple of those years federal employees did not receive any living adjustment). I do not believe Congress has received a cost of living raise since 2009.

Are you fist Farking me, do you think anyone else in a non-managment position is getting cost of living raises?

garandman1a:truelateral: I very much enjoyed my 1% pay rise in April, thanks government. Of course my pension contributions went up by 1% of pay as well.

My pension won't be any bigger, either. But that doesn't matter because I'll be working until I am 70.

Something tells me you work in government. Not that that's bad per se, but also you should be thankful for what you do get.

Out here in the private sector they solved the problem of 1% raise offset by 1% pension contribution by discontinuing our pensions, so the 1% we get, we get. Oh wait, they raise our medical contributions by 5%... But they tell us we get to keep it, and if we don't tow that line, well, leave. Unless they decide to make you leave against your will without warning or reason. But at least that means we don't have to worry about working until we turn 70. We will be sent out to pasture, without pension, long before that.

Yup, NHS, guilty. I love my job and I love my boss, which confuses me as I am the local union rep too.

Yeah I know plenty of people have it worse. I'm lucky to work the hours I want etc. etc. The rising cost of living sucks for everybody.

The 11% MP rise is just... annoying. Then again I could join a party and run for election myself, can't beat 'em, join 'em. However I'm not suitable as I cannot prevaricate and tend to just answer questions directly.

phalamir:Sin_City_Superhero: In addition, "resettlement payments" will be replaced with "more modest" loss-of-office payments, which will be available only to those who contest their seat and lose.

Wait...am I reading this right? Politicians that get voted out of office get a payment from the taxpayers? Or am I missing something?

It is effectively a severance package - money to relocate their office effects and cover them until they start a new job. It is a one-time payment set at a percentage of their annual salary.

This is how the BBC articles explain it. A whole raft of expenses the government picks up for MPs as a matter of course will be ended, and the MP will receive a bump in pay approximately equal to the average expense/MP. So instead of MP pay + Expense A + Expense B .... + Expense K, it will just be MP higher pay, but overall cost will remain the same.

MPs in the UK have long enjoyed an extremely generous 'expenses' fund with minimal oversight that also included money for redecorating their homes, an inflation proof final salary pension scheme that is achieved by putting away only 10% of their income for 40 years* and a generous severance pay that can equal their entire years salary if they have served long enough.

How much a MP was able to take home depended on how much they were willing to shamelessly game the system.

These reforms are intended to reduce 'expenses' abuse, make the pension fund somewhat more self funding, reign in the severance pay and make MPs actually detail what they are doing with their time... so it's no wonder the proposal is being blasted by MPs from all political parties.

*Scaled per year of service by 1/40 for each year if you serve less than 40 years. So if you serve for 10 years you get an inflation proof final salary pension of 25% of your paycheck.

durbnpoisn:This is my view on it. You know how to solve all of our political problems? Remove all financial gain from being a politician. No gifts. No salaries. Then you would only see people who actually CARE about the job doing the job. And they would actually do it.

I suppose that's your plan for making sure teachers REALLY want to teach and do a good job. Or any other public servant...

pkrzycki:Moopy Mac: Congress has voted to decline these increases the last several years (and in a couple of those years federal employees did not receive any living adjustment). I do not believe Congress has received a cost of living raise since 2009.

Are you fist Farking me, do you think anyone else in a non-managment position is getting cost of living raises?

They're not...

That's not the point. The point is to show how and whether Congress gets its raises. But you know that (or should know that).

As an aside, two separate strangers have complained to me about how small their Social Security cost of living increase will be this year. Were they giving back money when we had deflation in 2009?

God_Almighty_Himself:durbnpoisn: This is my view on it. You know how to solve all of our political problems? Remove all financial gain from being a politician. No gifts. No salaries. Then you would only see people who actually CARE about the job doing the job. And they would actually do it.

I suppose that's your plan for making sure teachers REALLY want to teach and do a good job. Or any other public servant...

Apples and oranges. Teachers aren't elected. They also don't get to vote on their own salary. (The union says they have a vote, but it's not the same thing.) They also don't get perks in the form of gifts.

"By law, Congress obtains an annual automatic pay adjustment, equivalent to the prior year's average private sector wage change. However, the raise can't be a higher percentage than for other federal employees."

Congress has voted to decline these increases the last several years (and in a couple of those years federal employees did not receive any living adjustment). I do not believe Congress has received a cost of living raise since 2009.

Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?

I think we need a payscale tied to performance, you know like teachers.

"By law, Congress obtains an annual automatic pay adjustment, equivalent to the prior year's average private sector wage change. However, the raise can't be a higher percentage than for other federal employees."

Congress has voted to decline these increases the last several years (and in a couple of those years federal employees did not receive any living adjustment). I do not believe Congress has received a cost of living raise since 2009.

Because Congress works for who pays them the most! The companies that lobby them.

What austerity? This is the first year spending there actually decreased. Did you mean their tax the rich form of austerity? The ones liberals keep asking for then blaming as austerity for Europes woes?